AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 8GB review -
Final words and conclusion

Final words and conclusion

So yeah, on a personal note I do seem to appreciate Vega 56 better compared to the 64, and here's why. Vega 56 offers and is a better proposition at 399 USD. That money just feels right for what you get. It's more or less 10% slower than the 64 (air-cooled model) yet 20% cheaper. Meanwhile the 56 passes the GeForce GTX 1070 and really is not that far off the GeForce GTX 1080. I can see the AIB partner board being clocked a notch higher, gaining in that remaining 10% difference. But sure, even in this default reference configuration there's a lot to say for Vega 56. You're going to see three reference models from AMD, the Vega 56, Vega 64 and the Vega 64 LCS edition with spin-offs in bundles like a red edition and LE configuration. AMD submitted both the Vega 56 and 64, ergo the LCS version might hit the market in small batches initially. As stated, the 56 does perform nicely with games anno 2017 and does position itself in a very competitive performance bracket as it feels right on many levels. The issues we had with the card really are minimal aside from AMD not having their tweaking up-to snuff and an occasional oddity. Sometimes the perf is worse (GTA5) compared to the GTX 1080, but then again it tears a hole in games like Battlefield 1. Anomalies always have been a part of launches. We have no doubt, it'll all be addressed.

The Vega GPU & performance

Vega 56 and 64 overall performs nicely. The end result is a chip that has 12.5 Billion transistors on the GPU (that's excluding HBM I think), and that is fairly massive, a chip sized 512 mm²; imagine that for a 14nm graphics processor. For the 56 part AMD was able to manage power consumption much better compared to the 64. We measured a 235 Watt range under heavy gaming stress, that's okay really. It is good to see we left the 4 GB VRAM cards behind us as I feel 8 GB is the current sweet spot for modern age PC gaming, the way it's meant to be played (no pun intended). In its reference performance bracket the card is a good choice for 1080p, 1440p as even 3840x2160 gaming. It's all early and a bit rushed to market, hence I think that Vega 64 has the potential to be a bit of a beast, but needs the right circumstances to really shine (cooler design). We think a driver tweak or two is still in order. The Radeon RX Vega 56, in most scenarios (depending on the game / render intensity / resolution), will perform a notch faster or is close to the GeForce GTX 1070, with the usual and unusual exceptions here and there it will even close in on the competition GeForce GTX 1080. Typically in Ultra HD you are bound to run out of graphics memory fairly fast, here's where that 8 GB kicks in nicely, so for 399 USD if you are not doing crazy stuff, Ultra HD gaming remains an appealing proposition. If for whatever reason you ever run out of that 8GB graphics memory, fool around a bit with the HBCC options (if you have system memory to spare), and you can use your system memory as an extra memory pool / buffer. HBM2 does offer very low latency graphics memory with nice bandwidth. But hey, performance wise really there's not one game that won't run seriously good at WQHD and even Ultra HD and that remains a fact. Vega definitely can crunch and render them games.

Pricing

Value wise the Radeon RX Vega 56 is making more sense than the 64, and at 399 I think it is pretty spot on to what it needs to be. With the on-going mining hype and AIB products being more expensive, I am however afraid that prices will be on the rise if the initial launch months do not have massive amounts of stock available. A quick overview, standalone reference Vega 56 will cost 399, Vega 64 499 USD (the standalone air-cooled versions). The liquid cooled edition that is clocked faster will sell at a price of 699 USD. We'll leave out the bundling stuff for now, as it is merely confusing and we doubt that many people are actually interested in the discount bundles where you need to purchase a specific monitor and Ryzen processor.

Cooling & Noise Levels

I stated this in the Vega 64 review, but despite a die-shrink at 14nm - Vega 10 is a big chip. Big chips produce heat when clocked high, and at a 1,156 MHz 1,471 MHz base/boost it is clocked fairly moderate. Regular Vega will be an air based cooler product series, as tested today. Yet the liquid cooled version does appeal more as it is getting that higher 1,406 MHz / 1,677 MHz clock. The end result for Vega 64 reference is a product package that keeps the graphics processor at a maximum of ~80 degrees C. Vega 56 with the reference cooler sits at a better 75 Degrees C domain. The noise levels here remain fairly moderate, you can hear the fan airflow clearly once housed in a PC. Overall dBA readings as such are high but in a real world situation where you leave the measurement metrics out of the equation and just listen with your ears, it is in line with a normal PC making above normal noises. But I certainly cannot quantify or qualify either Vega 56 or 64 air-cooled as a silent product, that's the honest truth. On the flip-side of that coin, again it certainly isn't too loud either. Personally we're far interested as to what the premium cooling solutions from AIB partners will bring on cooling and noise levels.

Power Consumption

The overall power consumption is values for the 56 are much better compared to the 64 models. The card is rated as having a 210 Watt TBP. We measure numbers in the ~235 Watt range with gaming. That number fluctuates a bit per game titles and resolution of course. It's a a bit above average wattage, compared to the competitions product in the same performance bracket. However much more decent compared to Vega 64. I think everybody will be fine with this level of power consumption.

Overclocking

The driver currently are not in a finished state. To be updated.

Conclusion

Oh yes, I'll state it again. Personally I do appreciate Vega 56 better compared to the 64. Vega 56 offers and is a better proposition at 399 USD. That money just feels right for what you get. It's more or less 10% slower than the 64 (air-cooled model) yet 20% cheaper. Meanwhile the 56 passes the GeForce GTX 1070 and really is not that far off the GeForce GTX 1080. I can see the AIB partner board being clocked a notch higher, gaining in that remaining 10% difference. But sure, even in this default reference configuration there's a lot to say for Vega 56. Vega 56 will be more than sufficient enough for a wide scope of monitor resolutions and heavy games. It is a bit of a workhorse and really, not much away from it's bigger brother. And let's face it, the nice 8 GB graphics memory certainly is enough for toady's games and onces in the future as that is a proper framebuffer. The advantages in-between GDDR5X and HBM2 I'll leave for what it is, I do feel that Vega with GDDR5X would have been a lovely solution and if AMD had diverted to a Plan B product, they probably could have had Vega in stores by Christmas last year. Who knows, it is what it is though. Connect your Vega 56 towards a nice FreeSync monitor and you'll have a really nice gaming experience even in the highest resolutions. Much like the 64, the 56 model air-cooled reference products will not be silent, in fact even the RX 56 exhibits a fairly moderately audible airflow that you will hear continuously while gaming. The good news here is that it is not at an annoying sound or sound-level, but yeah it's not at all silent. We also heard a fair bit of coil-noise in high-fps games, again nothing too worrying in a closed chassis. Cooling wise we hope to see AIB partners offer solutions with much improved coolers, cooling levels and also noise levels as there is a lot to be gained there over the reference design. Gaming wise you are rock solid though. Nicely rendered game-play is what you get back in return whilst you enable the most intensive image quality settings. And isn't that what it is all about with PC gaming? Overall we can recommend the Radeon RX Vega 64, but I would recommend the Vega 56 over the 64. It just seems to make more sense. I can only hope that AIB partners and the mining craze will not artificially inflate the prices as really, both 56 and 64 air-cooled cannot be any more expensive relative towards their game performance levels. For PC gaming I can certainly recommend Radeon RX Vega 56. It is a proper and good performance level that it offers, priced right. And also I really want to factor this into your purchasing decision, the Radeon Crimson software suite has advanced so much with much better support and stability fixes compared to say two years ago. I highly applaud that fact alone. Recommended you guys. I do however will place a last side-note here, if you are all about silent graphics card then you will be better off, and wait a bit more until we have tested some board partner cards, with custom coolers.

AMD Radeon VII 16 GB review (updated)We review the new AMD Radeon VII. A product that has been talked about for quite a while. The basis of this high-end graphics card is VEGA64. However with a die-shrink towards a 7nm fabricated packa...

AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 8GB reviewWe review the Radeon RX Vega 64 with 8GB graphics memory. The new AMD graphics card has arrived, is released and we'll take you through the architecture and the performance numbers. Was it worth the ...

Tech preview: AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and 64In this technology preview we'll have a closer look at the now announced AMD Radeon RX Vega 56 and 64. AMD is to release three models for the consumer market, two air-cooled versions and one liquid ...